411.320 Disclosure and use of public assistance records limited; contents as privileged communication; exceptions. (1) For the protection of applicants for and recipients of public assistance, except as otherwise provided in this section, the Department of Human Services shall not disclose or use the contents of any public assistance records, files, papers or communications for purposes other than those directly connected with the administration of the public assistance laws of Oregon or as necessary to assist public assistance applicants and recipients in accessing and receiving other governmental or private nonprofit services, and these records, files, papers and communications are considered confidential subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Human Services.

I've been out of town and slow to respond to some of the comments. Some responses follow on specific comments. But at the risk of repeating myself: We are pursuing these records in the public interest and because such records, just as pay records are, should be public. It isn't a matter of political ideology. Assuming we build a database, we will not list addresses, so fear of retribution that some have expressed is not an issue. After all, if someone is determined to find someone there are numerous ways to find an address, such as voter records. Also, it has been suggested we will publish all 110,000 records in print. That, obviously, is not possible. The database would be online.

Interesting and creative twists on what the column said. We have been analyzing PERS and its practices for more then a decade. The changes that took place several years ago were directly the result of our reporting. Further examining both the practices and impact of those practices is precisely what we are proposing to do.

Michael: Our only interest is to explore where taxpayer money is going. There is no vendetta. There is also no denying the drag PERS is imposing on local governments and schools. We are doing what we should be doing: reporting in the public interest. That's all it is.

Just to be clear: Sure some government agencies put notices in our paper and pay for them. The same as any advertiser. But to say that someone makes us a public agency, as many argue in these comments, is a huge stretch. Not sure what the reference is to government-paid interns. But, no, we pay our interns from our funds.

The mayor's op-ed today mischaracterized the point of a story this month by The Oregonian's Nikole Hannah-Jones. He also repeated a discredited claim.

Hannah-Jones, in a meticulously reported story published online Jan. 13 and in print Jan. 14, challenged Portland's reputation as a national hub for child sex trafficking. Hannah-Jones reported that little data, nationally or locally, support such a reputation.

Numerous experts, including Oregon FBI spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele, said there's no reason to think the problem is worse -- or better -- in Portland than it is elsewhere.

What Hannah-Jones and experts expressly did not say is that sex trafficking is not a problem in Portland, as Adams said in his piece. It is a problem; the issue is gauging the extent of the problem in the absence of data, especially in comparing Portland with other cities. Such data do not exist.

Adams also repeated a claim from a news release that was handed out at a news conference he held in November: that Portland police see an average of two cases of child sex trafficking each week. Adams attributed the claim to an unnamed police officer. But in Hannah-Jones’ story, Portland police Sgt. Mike Geiger, supervisor of the Portland police sex crimes unit, said police don't track such statistics.

In addition, Portland police spokeswoman Lt. Kelli Sheffer declined to provide Hannah-Jones with statistics on the number of adults arrested in the city on suspicion of trafficking. But Sheffer said the number is “very low.” She also said: “Portland is not the hub."

You have a much better memory than mine ... I'll have to go back and find the story from '95. But here's the truth: We don't carry water for either party. In fact, here's something you should know about journalists: We are a very independent lot. The last thing that would ever happen is for a story to be written because a political party asked for it. In fact, that would guarantee it wouldn't be written.

Thanks for your unequivocal comment "equivocal," but I don't think you're reading the same paper I do. Well, I don't think you're reading the paper. The Oregonian is and always has been a local newspaper first. We don't aspire to be the New York Times or the other national newspapers. So we have no apologies to make for featuring local news. That is who we are and will be. Based on your post you're missing a lot of good work by an outstanding staff of journalists.

As the column said, the money came from J-Lab at American U. The J-Lab program is funded by the Knight Foundation out of Miami. Knight is an outgrowth of the Knight-Ridder Newspapers, a major newspaper chain that was sold and broken up some years ago. So ... sorry to disappoint ... but the funding is non-partisan.

Thanks for the comment. As you might expect, I don't think we have dismantled our investigative reporting ability. In fact, we still have many superb investigative reporters, as recent stories on the BETC tax breaks, Treasury and any number of other topics indicate. We don't plan to form a formal investigative team, but we have set up our news operation and beats to stay focused on that sort of reporting of government, business and, of late, even sports. How we're structured isn't as important as emphasis and getting after stories.

It always interests me that people who don't read the paper seem to know so much about it. For example, we've conducted a series of investigations of DHS and its agencies over the past decade. The new state hospital being built in Salem? I know some won't agree with this statement, but it wouldn't be happening without the paper's reporting. Similarly, rules for placement of children with families outside the country were changed as a direct result of our series "Little Girl Lost." And there are plenty of other examples. Do we have more to do? Of course. Will we? Yes.